I suppose one could resort to the old standbys--he's playing Jedi mind tricks/reverse psychology games to get them to convert. Or the ever-green translation error argument, or the equally-popular "perhaps Rabbi Skorka and the Rev. Venables are deficient in Spanish or missed a colloquial nuance!" If you're feeling particularly feisty, the allegation that those who heard the Pope are filthy liars or otherwise besmirching the Pope's orthodoxy is another legitimate talking point.

To say this one didn't sting would be a lie. The unspoken corollary is that converts to Catholicism themselves are unnecessary: "Sure, if you wanna, for some reason, I guess. But really, dude--you're overdoing it. Just praise Jesus with that group you were born into. Sheesh!"I dunno about you, but I don't think I need any more pep talks from HQ.

Oscar Cullman. Man o man, get a load of him and gasp at just how close we Catholics are to fulfilling his destructive dreams masquerading as construction;

http://tinyurl.com/l8229xw

We are willing to give-up everything in the search of an impossible unity with others for such a chimera will have one hundred heads and thousands of cloven feet;; and yet that is the path we are on.

Thanks New Theologians for abandoning the definition of the Catholic Church as a Perfect Society (I.e. Lacking NOTHING) and supplanting that with a communion this, a sacrament that, a searcher after unity with our separated brethren other thing.

Dale you remind me of Atheists who quote the Bible out of context to make funny claims like it supports "rape" or some nonsense like that.

>It’s fair to ask what kind of Catholic Church we as Evangelicals want to see. At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question and comment was, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.” (Of course Evangelicals do evangelize Catholics and Catholics do the same to us. However, that discussion we will raise another day.)

I reply: Of course the Pope has been on record as condemning proselytizing(& Benedict and St John Paul have said similar) & of course Evangelicals don't make a distinction between Evangelizing and Proselytizing.

> suppose one could resort to the old standbys--he's playing Jedi mind tricks/reverse psychology games to get them to convert.

Rather his pastoral approach is no different then that of Pope Benedict QUOTE"“The Church does not grow by proselytizing; she grows by attracting others.”

And what attracts is our witness. Being a catechist means witnessing to the faith, being consistent in our personal life. This is not easy!

We help, we lead others to Jesus with our words and our lives, with our witness. I like to recall what Saint Francis of Assisi used to say to his friars: “Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary, use words.”

Words come . . . but witness comes first: people should see the Gospel, read the Gospel, in our lives [Address to Catechists, April 27, 2013].END QUOTE

Note this is from the "good" Pope Benedict whose Papacy certain people choose to see threw Rose Colored Glasses till the "bad" Pope showed up.

" Church grows by our witness, in words and deeds—rather than through proselytization."-Pope Francis

>Or the ever-green translation error argument, or the equally-popular "perhaps Rabbi Skorka and the Rev. Venables are deficient in Spanish or missed a colloquial nuance!"

Well you have to admit your knee-jerk desire to base your whole life & Faith on hearsay is getting tedious at this point.

Would that your unshakable faith in the accuracy of hearsay equaled your confidence in the Church?

>If you're feeling particularly feisty, the allegation that those who heard the Pope are filthy liars or otherwise besmirching the Pope's orthodoxy is another legitimate talking point.

Or the more reasonable view is they are filtering the Pope threw their understanding of reality with no conscience wicked agenda but they are not reading him with the Mind of the Church or Benedict?

>Or I suppose you could just attack me for bringing it to your attention--also a popular approach.

Yeh Dale I debate Atheists all the time on the net. They complain when I accuse them of misrepresenting the Bible that they are merely bring certain problem verses to my "attention" and they shouldn't be blamed if they show the Bible authorize (fill in the blank, Rape, Being forced to marry your rapist, cutting off the hands of women trying to protect their husbands etc...).

This isn't a rebuttal on your part. It's an excuse to flout your despair.

>To say this one didn't sting would be a lie. The unspoken corollary is that converts to Catholicism themselves are unnecessary:

If that where the case the Pope would ban converts . Like the Zoroastrians or Druze do in their religions.

Rather the Pope feels lead to take the soft cell approach. Till he issues a Papal Bull banning Catholic answers or excommunicates Patrick Madrid or Scott Hahn for seeking converts another way I would ditch the despair.

>I dunno about you, but I don't think I need any more pep talks from HQ.

What you need is to recognized is you have a bad case of despair.

You bent over backwards trying to find ways to interpret the INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS in the most negative way possible when even Jeff sees it as saying communion for the divorced and remarried is off the table.

You are going to drive yourself crazy doing this and you won't be able to blame the Pope for your own faults.

I've tried to be gentle in my last few comments, but I'm tired of your badgering, hectoring "I know more and am better than you" style. You aren't helping me see your viewpoint--in fact, you are confirming me in mine. As in "set in concrete."

If you really want to help, go away until you decide you want to speak to me with respect (big hint: "you have no clue" is disrespect). In other words, try some of that gentle non-preachy witness you just preached about.

Seriously. I don't want a rebuttal, I don't want an "intervention" and I sure as Hell don't want another dime store internet psychoanalysis.

In fact, I don't want another peep from you. Give it a rest and go away for a few months.

If you answer this--in any way, shape or form--you haven't gotten the message and you will be done here for good.

>If you answer this--in any way, shape or form--you haven't gotten the message and you will be done here for good.

I don't care. If you really want me gone for good why haven't you banned my IP by now? I can't stop you. Why are you allowing these posts if you don't want me here? You have all the power here & I have none.

>your badgering, hectoring "I know more and am better than you" style. You aren't helping me see your viewpoint--in fact, you are confirming me in mine. As in "set in concrete."

Your ultra thin skin is no help for me either.

>In other words, try some of that gentle non-preachy witness you just preached about.

Do you notice how ironic this appeal is in light of you criticisms of the style of Pope Francis?

>Seriously. I don't want a rebuttal,

That is your other problem you clearly don't like being told you could be wrong or you might not know what you are talking about.

Greg +Venables is on my short list of "good Anglican bishops," and one who was personally helpful to our little endeavors. I would expect that it's reasonable to rely on his report as substantially accurate. That is not "hearsay," that is first-hand witness testimony.

And if he misunderstood, why, that's what clarifications and corrections are for! Surely, given the personal relationship between the men, if Pope Francis felt that his friend and colleague had misunderstood him and (inadvertently, no doubt) misrepresented his position on a potential hot-button issue, he could have simply picked up the phone, and then both men could have issued a simple "sorry, what we meant was..." update.

But some advice - if you were genuinely asking to learn, rather than to gather fuel for whatever personal Inquisition you are running, then it would be possible for you to receive the answers to your "questions."

Zach, I appreciate you engaging on my behalf, but this stuff bothers Dale to the point where he stops blogging, and he's kinda one of my favorite Catholic bloggers, and I know and respect how much this stuff hurts him and... well. I'm a KOC. I know old dudes who get confused when I tell them 1950's American Catholicism is over forever.

I can't get through to them in real life how could I get through to someone over the internet?

William, don't mistake my radio silence as all or even mostly Church-related. Sometimes, sure. But we've got a full schedule in these parts--as I was joking with Zach, our homeschooled children's lack of socialization sure clogs the schedule with activity. :)

Nah, I'm well aware of how busy you are Dale. That's one reason I'm so defensive about this. I look forward to your posts because they're so insightful, and I know how deflating it is to have your main poster be a guy with nothing better to do than be negative. Especially, I have to say, when your average fan is a busy, intellectual American Catholic.

So we don't really need the "Black and White! American always forever!" comforts of 1950 NBC newscasts, as it were.

Wow, the level of denial some of these neo-Catholics live with is just incredible. After spending a 100+ comment string on this blog trying to get this Ben fellow to see that, when Pope Francis called proselytism "solemn nonsense" he was obviously, based on the context of the interview, talking about attempts to convert an unbeliever..Here's the worst of the carnage:.http://dprice.blogspot.com/2013/10/taking-break-from-all-your-worries-part_26.html?showComment=1383141846135#c3529076797150963542.Nevertheless, we were assured - despite the context of the interview - that we were all wrong and that the Pope embraced attempts to convert others so long as they didn't involve bribery or coercion; hence his use of the word proselytism rather than conversion..But now, lo and behold, that Pope has cleared things up for us, explaining that "He's not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism.".But you see, the neo-Catholics can't accept this either because they have no category in their minds for a pope who could hold such anti-Catholic sentiments; their ultramontism won't allow them to admit that Francis, in his private judgement, holds to errors that are seriously at odds with the Catholic faith. And so they just keep spinning. "The phrase is unclear! It's too ambiguous! He must have been misquoted! He really just meant proselytism again".Seriously? I wonder what it will take for these neo-Catholics to be roused from their slumber. The night is already far spent.

I'm happy that Pope Francis relaxed the entry requirements for the Ordinariate. That's a great step. Yay, Pope Francis!

Perhaps it even indicates that he has changed his mind since his initial signal that he would treat the Ordinariate as a pet project of Benedict's, but no longer relevant under his reign. Those with... ecclesiastical ambitions... no doubt received that memo loud and clear. Because it wasn't really that hard to understand.

Dale if via your reliance on hearsay you have concluded the Pope is against the Anglican Ordinate then why expand it by letting in the fallen away and others & over all making it easier to formally join?

As Zach said, hearsay is not quite what you think it is. I'm somewhat familiar with the rules of evidence myself. And in any event, there are many forms of hearsay that are considered quite reliable.

Rules 801-807 explain the concept and the exceptions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Seems to fall under 804(b)(3) to me.

Anywho, the fact he expanded it to round up fallen-away Catholics is to be applauded--and I did when I saw this last year--but it's not the same as expanding its reach with respect to Anglicans. It certainly doesn't step on *their* toes to reach out to baptized Catholics.

Which could be shown by actually inviting the POCSP to Rome for discussions, instead of just meeting with them as pilgrims.

So, yes, he's left it intact and allowed it to reach out to baptized Catholics. Neither of which is inconsistent with a personal desire not to convert outsiders, but rather to focus on sanctifying Catholics.

nouninformation received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

LAW-the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.END QUOTE

What we have is a soundbite quote from an Anglican Bishop from a larger conversation none of where priviy too. I personally don't find that very reliable. Also I am not giving a legal defintion of what counts as authentic admissible testamony that would be allowed by a judge. I am making a personal evaluation based on the direct evidence or lack there of.

>Anywho, the fact he expanded it to round up fallen-away Catholics is to be applauded--and I did when I saw this last year--but it's not the same as expanding its reach with respect to Anglicans. It certainly doesn't step on *their* toes to reach out to baptized Catholics.

Except the Pope's actions make it easier for them to grow larger and faster thus creating more Anglican Use Catholic Churches. This on the pratical level makes them more visible & thus easier for disaffected Anglicans to see and join them.

The Russian Orthodox Patriarch would give his right arm to have the Vatican desolve all Eastern Rite Catholic Churches even thought the Eastern Catholics don't actively try to convert their orthodox counter parts. There mere existence is an exitential threat to them. Making it so more Anglican Use Churches might exist has the opposite effect of trying to keep Anglicans Protestant.

>So, yes, he's left it intact and allowed it to reach out to baptized Catholics. Neither of which is inconsistent with a personal desire not to convert outsiders, but rather to focus on sanctifying Catholics.

Where has the Pope formally forbidden the Ordinate from seeking Anglican Protestant converts or accepting them?

He hasn't as far as we can see,

One sound bite without a context does not constitute an overthrow of REDMTORIS MISSO by St John Paul the Great.

Well, since the Rules of Evidence are based upon human experience, and dictionaries are notoriously limiting, I'll go with the Rules of Evidence.

To wit: there's Bishop Venables, Rabbi Skorka, and Brian Stiller. The first two are friends. But, darn it, the Pope just happens to run into people who all misunderstand him in exactly the same way over the course of several years. Sure.

What's not credible is the desperate spinning away from the unpleasant evidence.

I don't expect him to move against the Ordinariate before Benedict dies. After that, all bets are off.